AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jeffery E. Allen for the Master of Arts Degree in Social Soiences-American History presented on August 1, 1981 Title: JAMES MONROE SWALES: LETTERS OF A UNION SOLDIER , ! Abstract approved: '), -Cj/{ Y:::lWI)< ' /~i!rA., This thesis explores the letters written by James Monroe Swales, a young volunteer of the lOth Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment after his enlistment in August, lA61. The 21-year-old volunteer sent letters to relatives, who retained them until making them available to the public through the Illinois State Historical Library. As a reSUlt, the personal account of this Union soldier survives and allows this stUdy to illuminate the man, his regiment, and to a certain extent the society in which he lived. In earthy lan­ guage his letters expressed the high and low moments of life at the outposts at Cairo and Mound City, Illinois where Ulysses S. Grant was forming an army in the later months of 1861. A record of the individual and his regiment accompanies the letters, and together they contribute to the history of the common soldier's Civil War experience. y JAMES MONROE SWALES: LETTERS OF A UNION SOLDIER A Thesis Presented to the Department of Social Sciences EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Jeffery E. -Allen July, 1981- 1 1 / r"; r ~. " r­ ,,-. -" -' c:j-: I I ! • I f l ACKNOWLEDGMENT This thesis is dedicated to the help and understanding of all who have been patient with me during this under­ taking. v~, 424804 ,WI' ". 0 \sa2. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgment Chapter l. Introduction: "Cairo and the War" ••••• , page 1 Chapter 2. Introduction to Letter, and Edited Letter from James M. Swales to David Swales from Camp Defiance, Cairo, Illinois, August 29, 1861 . page 11 Chapter 3. Introduction and Edited Letter of James M. Swales to David Swales, Camp Defiance, Cairo, Illinois, September 8, 1861 • page 21 Chapter 4. Introduction and Edited Letter of James M. Swales to David Swales, Mound City. Illinois, October 9, 1861 •• . page 30 Chapter 5. Introduction and Edited Letter of James M. Swales to David Swales, Mound City, Illinois, October 25, 1861 .•• page 42 Chapter 6. Introduction and Edited Letter of James M. Swales to David Swales, Mound City, Illinois, December 3, 1861 .•• . page 51 Chapter 7. Conclusion, "Service and Career of James M. Swales, Military and Civilian". page 57 Bibliography. page 73 Appendix. • page 76 Maps of locations where lOth Illinois was known to be. page 77,78 CHAPTER 1 1861 was a year of crisis for the United States of America as the threats and rumors of disuption caused by more than a decade of increasing discontent in the South festered into an actual cleavage of sections. Secession movements after the election of Abraham Lincoln spread through the deep South, and soon afterward stalwarts of the southern cause were arming themselves to challenge the United States flag at government installations in the region. Until the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in South Carolina, the conciliatory tolerance as well as firmness of Mr. Lincoln's policy had impelled the upper South's state governments to maintain loyalty to the Union. The attack and aftermath engendered by the President's call for volunteers, and for the suppression of rebellion, changed the relationship of several of these states with the national government. Four of the six had cast their fortunes with the self-proclaimed Confederate States of America in that calamitous year for the United States. Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas had joined their fates with the Confederacy while Missouri and Kentucky remained in contention. Many Missourians' ferment and anger at the outcome of the results of the election 2. appeared to be moving the population and state government toward the establishment of a southern regime. However, in the excitement of the spring of 1861 events followed a less likely course. The complex events in Missouri were due to the unshared visions of the future which separated secession­ ists from non-secessionists. 1 Missouri's Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson had begun quiet preparation for the association of his state with the Confederacy, only to be thwarted pUblicly by German immi­ grants who managed to dominate the state's secessional con­ vention with a 98 to 1 voting ratio against the proposition. Subsequently, violence erupted between the two factions, one backed by northern forces, and the other consisting of the governor and his pro-Confederate followers. It was the war's western theater in the latter months of 1861 while Union forces were continuing a build-up at Cairo under Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant. Grant's command at Cairo had received little official endorsement until late in 1861 after Confederate activity had increased in southeastern Missouri, and southern troops had entered western Kentucky. Those acts combined to threaten Union strategy, or lack of it, on that section of the Mississippi River. They presented the potential for a strong Confederate advantage in Missouri, Kentucky, and other points in the region. 2 The Confederates had moved into what they thought to be an advantageous position in Columbus, Kentucky. In hindsight this was pure miscalculation. Instead, their occupation of the area was seen as aggression by many undecided Kentuckians, 3. thus shying the people and legislature of the Bluegrass State closer to the Union. 2 At the same stroke, the unwiley Con­ federates also gave the Union army under General Grant an acceptable pretext to enter the state and occupy the mouths of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Grant's movements opened the gates to middle Tennessee, northern Alabama, and northern Mississippi. 3 The fort at Columbus being built by General Leonidas Polk's Confederate troops caused the value of the Union base at Cairo, Illinois to be more greatly appreciated. 4 Situated twenty miles north from Columbus, it monitored enemy activity there, and across the rivers in Kentucky and Missouri, Cairo also provided a secure riverine naval base at the juncture of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers for the gunboats and trans­ ports of Admiral Andrew Foote's inland navy. His fleet was gradually able to gain control of the South's rivers from Confederate gunboats and defenses, and to deliver Union troops to points of enemy concentration. 5 The building of additional new gunboats at St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Mound City, near Cairo, increased the mobile firepower of Grant's forces. As a dividend, the river opera­ tions Grant and Foote launched by the following year were greatly enhanced by an uncommon spirit of cooperation between Army and Navy, which brought success to the combined forces under General Grant. Those operations with a river fleet had been made possible by the joint efforts of the St. Louis contractor James B. Eads and Secretary, of the Navy Gideon Welles, who authorized the former's proposals. 6 4. With a nascent fleet grouping in the vicinity of Cairo, it was safer from enemy raids. 7 Earlier in 1861 Cairo regu­ lated river commerce, and the southern terminal of the Illinois Central Railroad with an ill-trained, but enthusiastic group of Illinois volunteer regiments under the temporary command of General Benjamin Prentiss, the first colonel of the lOth Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Fortunately for them, the Confederates were as loosely organized as the early Illinois force, and thus unable to launch an attack. Columbus similarly performed the functions of the South's northernmost Mississippi River sentInel, and railhead for its Gulf and Mobile Railroad. However, it was near high river bluffs useful for the emplacement of large artillery pieces to block northern use of the river. If it could be held against attack by land, it offered the south an anchor against the encroachment of Union forces. Soon, however, those plans were dashed by Grant's utilization of the northern forces grouped at Cairo. The fort at Columbus was bypassed and finally evacuated in 1862, despite the threat it had consti­ tuted in 1861. B General Grant's arrival at Cairo on September 1 was a powerfUl boost for the morale and efficiency of the troops there. Many accounts of the situation at the camps in the vicinity of Cairo summarized the need for a leader such as Ulysses S. Grant. These men demonstrated fine fighting abilities the following year in battles such as Island Number la, and the victory over the Confederates at Fort Donelson. Grant's experienced leadership brought out much of $. the strength of these volunteers while o~ercoming many of their weaknesses. 9 Months before Grant had arrived to take command at Cairo, these soldiers of the volunteer regiments of Illinois had secured the southern tip of the state. The action was the result of early cooperation between the state of Illinois and the Lincoln Administration, which facilitated the rapid re­ cruitment of regiments and their transfer to the outpost. Richard Yates of Jacksonville, recently elected Republican governor of Illinois, and his aides quickly reacted to a War Department dispatch ordering him to send troops there. 10 From the assemblage of companies in local communities, regi­ ments were formed in Springfield in accord with Congressional Representative districts. 11 The men and officers of these regiments were the vanguard of the troops Grant was to command in September of 1861. The growth of the outpost emphasized its position in early Union strategy, and incidentally the proximity of large numbers of Confederate troops. As of May, 1861, there were 3,000 troops in Cairo; a month later the force had grown to 6,000. In the month when Grant took command, the number had swelled to 20,000, thus making it a formidable force in that region of Illinois.